Roy Moore Attends Rally With Domestic Terrorists

Jessica Mason Pieklo, who wrote the book Crow After Roe with my friend Robin Marty, reports that a judicial ethics complaint has been filed against Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore for taking part in an anti-choice rally in July along with several domestic terrorists.

Reproductive rights advocates filed a judicial ethics complaint against Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore alleging Moore showed public support for domestic terrorism by speaking at a rally held by the radically anti-choice group, Operation Save America.

Moore attended the July 11 rally in Montgomery, Alabama, the complaint reads, as did convicted abortion clinic bomber John Brockhoeft, according to photos shared by Alabama Reproductive Rights Advocates, a reproductive rights advocacy organization. Brockhoeft, an affiliate of the extremist organization the Army of God, served seven years in federal prison for setting fire to two Cincinnati abortion clinics in 1985 and planting a pipe bomb at another in 1987…

“By affiliating with members of Operation Rescue, Army of God, and OSA he has aligned himself ethically with people and organizations who meed the federal criteria of domestic terrorists,” AARA stated in a release following filing the ethics charge. “By aligning with them, Moore is guilty of domestic treason by association, conflict of interest, misconduct, collusion, and consorting with the enemy.”

Other anti-choice extremists were in attendance at the OSA rallies, many of whom believe in justifiable homicide against anyone working in an abortion clinic. As alleged in the complaint, the Rev. Matthew Trewhella, a Milwaukee anti-choice leader and co-founder of the Missionaries to the Preborn, was among those in attendance.

Trewhella, a convicted arsonist, was investigated in the 1990s for abortion clinic violence and served 14 months in prison for violation of the federal FACE Act. Convicted rapist and anti-choice extremist Scott Heldreth also attended the rally in Montgomery, the ARRA notes.

None of this is remotely surprising. Moore is a Christian Reconstructionist who has openly called for state-sanctioned violence against gay people, women who have abortions and the medical personnel that serve them.

"I've seen many trolls trying to distract from Moore by saying what about Franken"

How to Think Critically About the ..."
"I have seen zero (serious) people who claim Franken and Moore are both equally as ..."

How to Think Critically About the ..."
"Pretty much every word of this sounds like a verbatim defense from a Roy Moore ..."

How to Think Critically About the ..."
"If that's the kind of story he has to tell his wife to get in ..."

Warning: Alex Jones is Going to ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Synfandel

    So, what does it take to remove a state’s Supreme Court Chief Justice? How bad does his behaviour have to get and what’s the mechanism (if there is one)?

  • raven

    Roy Moore was already impeached and removed once.

    The voters in Alabama just reelected him anyway.

    So, what does it take to remove a state’s Supreme Court Chief Justice?

    Hard to say. Maybe he has to kill someone first.

  • raven

    A better question is what is wrong with Alabama?

    But we already know so it is moot.

  • dingojack

    I assume that this John Brockhoeft was a fellow speaker at this rally and that Moore knew he was going to attend, not that Moore turned up to a rally as a speaker and that this convicted criminal also happened to attend?

    But even still I have definite qualms about this:

    a) Brockhoeft served a seven year sentence for his crimes.

    b) that both Moore and, the former terrorist, Brockhoeft were at the same function doesn’t transfer guilt from one to the other. (Next time you go to a demo, better check that former murders, rapists, arsonists, armed robbers, fraudsters and/or the like don’t also turn up, or worse, speak)

    c) ‘treason by association’? If these groups have declared war on the US (and therefore could be, justifiably, called ‘the enemy’), and/or Moore has proven to have given ‘aid and comfort’ to this enemy, well then, perhaps… (and what other kinds of ‘guilt by association’ will be next?)

    While I agree with the sentiment, perhaps they’ve draw too long a bow.

    Dingo

  • felicis

    “By aligning with them, Moore is guilty of domestic treason by association, conflict of interest, misconduct, collusion, and consorting with the enemy.”

    Domestic treason? By *association*? Consorting with *the enemy*?

    I think the only thing you could really use is ‘misconduct’ – maybe. Even then, do judges have a right of association?

    Synfandel @1: It appears to vary by state, Alabama has both impeachment and a Judicial Inquiry Commission that investigates and files complaints with the Court of the Judiciary (whose decisions can be appealed to the State Supreme Court).

    I think though – even if he were removed from the bench, he could still be re-elected. Assuming that the complaint would gain any traction – how many members of the commission and court of the judiciary support him?

  • alanb

    @ #2,

    The old line used to be that they have to find him in bed with dead girl or a live boy.

  • tomh

    “Moore is guilty of domestic treason by association”

    Really, is that an actionable offense?

  • Loqi

    I wouldn’t be surprised if Moore backed these terrorists 100%. Having said that, the phrase, “guilty of domestic treason by association” is a frightening concept. Thankfully, there’s no such thing, or I’d be in the slammer right now based on the actions of certain relatives.

    Also, bombing and burning down clinics only nets 15 years for certain people? Damn it’s good to be white. /sigh

  • http://festeringscabofrealityblogspot.com fifthdentist

    I think in Alabama they refer to “consorting with domestic terrorists” as “campaigning for re-election.”

  • whheydt

    Re: raven @ #2…

    As I recall his previous removal, impeachment was not part of the process. He was removed by the commission that oversees the state judiciary. Problem is, as others have noted, he got re-elected. The real question is: Can he be removed *and* be barred from running again? Does that take a “three strikes” situation, while we’re only on the second strike at the moment?

  • abb3w

    @10, whheydt

    The real question is: Can he be removed *and* be barred from running again?

    If impeached, yes. From what I recall from reading at the time of the first removal, disqualification from subsequent office is beyond the scope of the commission’s authority.

    About the only think they could do anywhere on those lines would be to include in their findings an assessment that his presence should be considered prima facia evidence against validity of the due process of the legal proceedings — essentially, giving every case he’d ever heard, or every case he might ever hear if re-elected, grounds for immediate federal appeal to demand re-heading without him. This would not completely prevent him for running nor being re-elected, but might provide a “poison pill” of completely subordinating the state judiciary to the federal for the duration (and incidentally triggering a Constitutional crisis).

    Contrariwise, judicial ethics boards tend to be exceedingly restrained; frankly, I’d consider it far more likely that Scalia would moon the United States Solicitor General during proceedings of the United States Supreme Court.

    And nohow, I’m not a lawyer.